How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 It's Official...   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

It's Official...

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 05-14-2008 09:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Senate rejects oil drilling in Alaska wildlife refuge
Defeat for White House

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 Posted: 4:20 PM EST (2120 GMT)
Environmentalists oppose a proposal to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Wednesday narrowly rejected oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, rebuffing the Bush administration on a top energy goal it had hoped to win with a wartime security appeal.

Despite intense lobbying by pro-drilling senators and the White House in the hours leading up to the vote, Democrats mustered the support needed to remove a drilling provision from a budget resolution expected to be approved later this week.



It is now official. The United States has the most riduculous Congress in the history of the country. Well, the Democrats did promise that they would change things if they got in.....they kept their promise.

An interesting postscript to this is that this story wasn't listed in the Yahoo headlines, nor was it listed on the "Latest Headlines" segment, which lists over 20 of the day's important stories, nor did I see it on the network tv news. I had to look it up on google to find it. Gee, I wonder why...

Could it possibly be that our friendly left-wing news agencies knew how negative of a reaction it would cause among the Joe Six Packs who are shelling out almost 4 bucks a gallon while we are sitting on enough oil to drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Nah, it can't be that, can it?

Congress has taken pathetic to a new level...nice going.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


1 posted 05-14-2008 10:33 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Can you explain to me why it's pathetic?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 05-14-2008 11:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, serenity-gal, I'm writing a small story about it. I'll let you see it when i'm finished.

It's about the year 3050 and a father is helping his young son review past civilizations. He tells his son about an ancient country called the United States of America, the strongest, most successful country in the history of the world. He spoke of how the people lived in relative freedom and citizens were free to be as successful as they could be. He told him how this country went to the aid of other countries threatened by dictators, gave billions of dollars in aid to needy countries, and was the true world leader, economically and militarily. His son then asked what had happened to this great country. The father recounted the middle east wars, the rise of terrorism and their takeover of middle east governments,and their subsequent assault on the United States. He told him how they joined with other sympathetic oil-producing countries who also hated the United States and, together, they shut off the supply of oil to the U.S., basically parylizing the country and rendering their military useless. In the end they were able to attack and destroy the United States, and the greatest nation in the history of the world ceased to exist in that capacity, following the likes of Rome, Sparta and Greece.

The son lamented how such a wonderful country was defeated just because they had no oil. The father then told him that wasn't true. They actually DID have oil, more than they could possible use. The boy said he didn;t understand. If they had it, why didn't they use it, to which the father explained that environmental groups and certain political parties blocked any attempt to use it, citing damage to the environment among other such bits of reasoning. The boy still didn't get it. They made it possible for their country to be destroyed because they didn't want to hurt the environment? He didn't see where the sense in that lay.

Guess what? Neither do I.

Yes, Karen...pathetic. We have more oil than we will ever need...in Alaska, in the Dakotas and offshore. There was a discussion with an environmentalist yesterday on tv. It was pointed out to him that the size relationship between Anwar and Alaska was the equivalent of a postage stamp on a tennis court. He replied that it didn't matter - the environment was very delicate and one never knows what can damage it. Florida passed a law that prohibits off-shore drilling out to a minimum distance of 250 miles at the same time Mexico gave permission to drill off-shore 80 miles from Key West. We have to go out 250, China drills 80 miles away. Nice.

Australia has been drilling for 0ver 40 years with no mishaps. Perhaps we can have them teach us how to do it, since the environmentalists are so certain we can't do it safely ourselves. So what do we do instead? We buy the oil from other countries that we don't want to produce, we send billions out of the country, much of which is used to fight us...all of this because a certain part of our government does not want to have us use our own natural resources. You don't call that pathetic?

Still don't want to use our own oil? How about nuclear energy then? Nope... they don't want that, either. France, which should be on no one's list of countries to emulate, uses nuclear power for over 90% of their energy usage. Obviously they are much smarter than we are.

My friend, I use that word because it describes the refusal to use our own resources and instead watch our prices on anything to do with oil skyrocket and keep us in the grip of foreign governments....and for what? There is no concrete proof that our oil exploration would be detrimental to the environment...it is the fear tactic that the environmentalists and Democrats use...the "what if..." warnings. When the senate majority leader was on tv today he said, "Yes, I heard about the Republican solutions to our energy crisis...drill, drill, drill" and he spat it out as if it were the most distasteful thing he'd ever had to say.

I ask again....why do you think the results of this vote received practically no public exposure? They know that a good portion of the American public would use the same word you request that I explain....pathetic.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


3 posted 05-15-2008 10:45 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Because if it received exposure then maybe people would see who is really at fault...the Democrat controlled Congress. We can't have that now can we? After all, if oil prices stabilized due to our plans to start using our own resources, then prices wouldn't keep going through the roof, and it would be one less thing they could blame on Bush, or any future Republican President.
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


4 posted 05-16-2008 04:12 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Maybe it's part of a brilliant master plan.  

If we continue to buy oil from other countries until they no longer have enough left to export, we will be able to tap our reserves and go neener-neener-neener.

As an alternative projection of the 3050 senario, maybe fathers and sons in the US will gather together to sing praises to the oil companies, which have abandoned price gouging and ruthless profiteering now that they have total control of the world's last remaining supply. Uh huh.

Nuclear energy has a few problems.  There was that, uh, Chernobyl thing, and the Arizona fiasco with the plant that never came on line because it, ah, didn't work.
Even so, as the post points out, the French have a handle on it.  

So, two more 3050 scenarios:  fathers and sons will be happily driving their electric vehicles recharged by atomic energy based power plants built here by the French.  Or, alternatively, Fathers will have to explain to sons why the greatest nation in the world is now an unapproachable wasteland because construction of the energy plants was contracted out to Halliburton.

Bio-deisel may provide som interim relief, though it it had for me to imagine a-real world scenario where everything is powered by cowfarts and Wesson oil.

Somone, somewhere, I'll venture, is close to figuring out how to economically split the water atom into hygrogen and oxygen, or figure out how to generate electricity from the difference in the temperatures of ocean currents.  After the oily-garchy gets over it, or figures out how to profit from it, this budding Prometheus will eventually be vindicated, just as Tesla was.

We're sure in a pickle now, though.

Best, Jimbeaux.
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


5 posted 05-16-2008 05:22 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Denise:  Re: “Because if it received exposure then maybe people would see who is really at fault...the Democrat controlled Congress."


There are currently 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, there are 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and 2 Independents. This (Class of 2006) is the first time the Democrats have held the majority in the House since 1994. In terms of percentages, 54% of House members are Democrats and 49% are Republicans.  The Senate is split 50/50.

Does the post suggest that 31 Democrats in the House of Representatives control the Congress and run the country, despite a Republican Executive Branch and a conservative Supreme Court?   Or that the Exceutive Branch has somehow decided to go along with whatever that “gang of 31” suggests?  Or that all Democratic Representatives and Senators always agree with each other and always vote the same way?  

Vice President Cheney is the President of the Senate and ultimate tie breaker, unless he’s given that up along with his assertion that the Office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive branch.  Nancy Peolsi is Speaker of the House.  That looks like a 50/50 split in leadership of the joint Congress to me.

Congress creates and presents legislative and administrative bills through the process of negotiating toward consensus.  The hypothetical “gang of 31” can’t achieve consensus to bring a bill of impeachment against President Bush.  Not much overwhelming control there.  

Best, Jimbeaux  

[This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (05-17-2008 11:40 AM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


6 posted 05-17-2008 09:35 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Control doesn't have to be overwhemling to be control. They even did damage when they weren't technically in conrol via their constant use of the filibuster to prevent issues from being brought forward for a vote. That shows how much they care about democracy. They blocked the people's representatives from even having a chance to vote on various issues. And the Republicans share the blame as well for not pushing for filibuster reform when they had the chance.

If it weren't for the Democrats we would be pumping and refining our own oil instead of investing money in bio-fuel technology that has not only not brought fuel prices down as claimed, but has also increased the cost of corn and everything else, right on up the food chain. Have you seen the prices at the supermarket lately? Pretty soon we won't even be able to afford spaghetti or macaroni, the traditional staple of the poor, i.e, the middle-class family.

And if a Democrat gains the White House, see how fast the taxes go up. Hillary or Obama won't be able to sign that bill fast enough. And it won't be just on the "wealthiest", as they are saying on the campaign trail. Getting rid of Bush's tax cuts will affect all of us, since his tax cuts helped all of us, not just the "wealthiest". (The Democrats actually had a "symbolic" vote a month or so ago, to do just that). What else can they do? They have to finance their socialized "free" health care in some way! You think the wait in the E.R. is long now? Just wait until the government is in charge.

And then they will probably tack on another tax, estimating each individual's carbon footprint on the planet and give some of the funds to Al Gore and his friends to finance another book and movie, in their never-ending endeavor to validate their worth in the world, after the politicians first give themselves their much deserved salary increase, of course, for serving their constituents so well.

I doubt humankind will be around in 3050. Father and son will have either died waiting for medical care or have starved to death for lack of money to buy food. Mother Earth, in all her splendour, will flourish, unmarred by the taint of humanity, but, alas, there will be no one left to worship at her feet.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


7 posted 05-17-2008 04:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Denise, i am forced to disagree.

Spam and vienna sausages are the traditional staples of the poor!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


8 posted 05-17-2008 10:14 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Wow, Mike, you can still afford those? I almost bought some this week, but I had to put them back. I needed the money to put in the gas tank to get me back home. I barely made it to the supermarket in the first place, running on fumes the way that I was. Sigh. Maybe next time. Until then I can dream!

Is it my imagination, or does that corn gas not last as long as the old fashioned kind?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


9 posted 05-17-2008 11:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Alrighty, then. I'm learning here! Our energy crisis is because of the oil companies profiteering and price gouging  and we should not engage in nuclear energy because of Chernobyl. I'm glad the powers that be didn't apply that logic to air travel with the first airplane crash!

As far as waiting for other countries to run out of oil, there's a great plan but we won't see it and neither will our children or grandchildren, unfortunately. Oh, yes, and damn that Halliburton, once again!

You left out another future scenario, Jim. The residents of what was once the United States will be enjoying the pristine beauty of Alaska and their ears will be kept warm by the earmuffs under their turbans.

As I have heard many times, the answer to our energy crisis is....somebody will think of something. Nobody knows what that something is but they are all confident that the "something" will show up to save our non-drilling derrieres.

Yep, Jim, we ARE in a pickle but you haven't mentioned why we should be with all of the resources we have. No environmentalist will even debate their position. They speak of pristine beauty and the delicate nature of the environment but they run from anyone who asks them to be specific. Have you ever heard Gore debate his positions? He won't. Just as you here have not mentioned any point detrimental to using our own oil, neither will they. They just try to be threatening enough to cause people to say, "No, we shouldn't drill. Somebody will think of something!"

It reminds me of the old joke about the preacher caught in his house during a flash flood. Rescuers came by to get him out but he said, "I'm not worried. God will save me!" Then he had to climb up into the attic as the water rose and a boat came by, calling for him to get in. "No problem", he said. "God will save me." Then he had to go out onto the roof as the water kept rising. A helicopter came by and dropped a rope. He waved it away, calling "God will save me!" Eventually he drowned and, when reaching Heaven, he looked up God and asked him, " I don't understand, I've been in your service my entire life. Why didn't you save me when I needed you?"  God replied, "What do you want from me? I sent you men, a boat and a helicopter!!!"

That's where we are right now, ignoring the obvious solutions and counting on that "something" that "someone" will create to save us. The water is rising..........


Forget the corn oil, denise. I'm working on a miniature windmill that fits on the hood. My previous idea didn't work because all of the gerbils died
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


10 posted 05-17-2008 11:32 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Here's the part that continues to both frustrate and confuse me, Mike. How can you simultaneously see this as the greatest country of all history and, it would seem, the stupidest? Remember, now, you're not "really" blaming the politicians for anything; you're blaming the majority of Americans who elected them, and for that matter, the ones who apparently couldn't manage to elect better alternatives. In a democracy, everything that happens is OUR fault.

As to the issue itself, I'm pretty much in the dark as to the dangers (if any) of drilling for oil. Would I want an oil rig thumping away in my back yard? Probably not, though I'd like to think I could remain open to negotiation. If the offer is good enough, I suppose I could always move. Maybe to Alaska?

It's honestly a little difficult for me to be either compassionate or angry over this. It too much reminds me of a junkie who, having gone through his savings, is now ready to mortgage his house to get his next fix. What started out easy, even enjoyable I suppose, is starting to get harder now. And it's going to keep right on getting harder and harder and harder, until eventually the junkie is willing to give up anything and everything he once held dear. Ultimately, I have to think the solution isn't to find more ways to get a fix. That's just short term thinking. The solution is to get off the junk.

Anyone got a horse for sale?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 05-18-2008 01:54 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

How can you simultaneously see this as the greatest country of all history and, it would seem, the stupidest?

Good question, Ron. It frustrates and confuses me, too. We are not the country we once were and I don't like the future of the USA, either. Somewhere we got lost along the way. Perhaps we have been beaten down by the "can't fight city hall" syndrome. Government has gotten too big, too powerful and they have a blank check. They are not responsible to the people anymore and the people are not organized enough to do anything about it.  Is it our fault? Sure....but then Hitler was the German people's fault, Mussolini was the Italians' fault, and Saddam Hussein was the Iraqi people's fault. I still find it amazing that people vote for a party that advocates still MORE government in our lives.


It's honestly a little difficult for me to be either compassionate or angry over this.

Then I have no idea in the world what makes you either compassionate or angry. We are speaking of a vital product of our lives, which we use every day, which controls our economy, which sets our prices and dictates where our earnings go, a product that we purchase from countries who use part of our own money to fight us, a product that we actually have in abundance and do not use while we continue to send out billions to other countries for it......and it's unimportant to you? Then our economy must also be unimportant, along with our independence, I suppose.

Your "junkie" example makes no sense to me whatsoever. It too much reminds me of a junkie who, having gone through his savings, is now ready to mortgage his house to get his next fix. We haven't gone through any savings - that's the problem. We still have all of our savings because we won't use them! We are the senile old man who will die of hunger with a million in his mattress.

until eventually the junkie is willing to give up anything and everything he once held dear.  and we are willing to give up....what? What are you suggesting we are giving up that we once held so dear when you acknowledge you can't see any dangers in drilling for oil?  We would be giving up nothing except our dependence on other countries. Is that such a bad thing? Are we junkies because our society, along with every other society in the world, has been set up to rely on oil? I think that label is a little far-fetched.


Ultimately, I have to think the solution isn't to find more ways to get a fix. That's just short term thinking. The solution is to get off the junk.


Here we can agree. We ARE dealing in short term, now, though, and we have our own resources to get through it if we will just use them. Long term? What's wrong with nuclear power? Why are certain areas of the government and environmentalists against that? That would get us off the 'junk'. I'm sure there are scientists and great thinkers working overtime to come up with SOMETHING....but when will that happen? There will one day be a cure for cancer, too, but that's not helping anybody who has it now.

To me it is completely illogical to not use our own natural resources while paying billions to other countries for it and watching our economy, and the buying power of every American, jerk at the whim of those who control oil production. It's something that I CAN show compassion and  anger over.....and I do.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


12 posted 05-18-2008 02:52 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Maybe I'm just taking this all too seriously. I'm new at taking things seriously though, so I guess I may have some over-zealous moments of seriousness.

(Short-lived, and usually cyclic with the moon and um, other personal unmentionables.)

I think the partisan slants have been irking me for a long time though.

I really don't think playing the blame game (on either side) is in the best interest of the American people.

It's akin to sitting around in a smoke-filled building, arguing over if there is a fire, and then arguing over who started it.

I happen to think it's best to just co-operate with each other and salvage what we able to salvage. What we need right now, and I do mean "yesterday" are people with some foresight and organizational abilities.

Not more needless needling.

And speaking of needles...

I like Ron's junkie analogy too. Although, just "getting off the junk" is a much more complicated process than just a decision of "Well, I won't do that again." Sometimes a proposed cure is worse than the problem. (I honestly thought Methadone was um, how someone got off heroin. It can be, but withdrawals from Methadone are like, ten times worse.)<--stay with the analogy there, now.

But I was intrigued by this statement, Mike.

"We are not the country we once were"

Wouldn't it be awful if we were? Wouldn't that make us a stagnant entity, oblivious to the changes that have gone on without us?

So I'll start another thread using that as a quote if you don't mind, Balladeer.

A nice, non-partisan thread, I would hope.

I realize other people might find these threads amusing, but I happen to think that we truly need a unified country to maintain strength and integrity. As a comparatively young nation, I also think we need to show some signs of maturity at this point, and own our mistakes and yes, remember our history. It's a simple part of the now famous, sometimes successful 12-step program to make an honest self-evaluation, apologize for that which we can't amend, and make reparations whenever possible.

But forgive me my lack of humor these days regarding party loyalties.

While it might be good fun in some instances, I think it is damaging in times of crisis. And honestly, I don't see how any attempt to preserve the ecology of our planet can be viewed as pathetic.

Now. I'm off to start that other thread...

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 05-18-2008 09:18 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sometimes a proposed cure is worse than the problem.

Yep, Serenity, sometimes it is. The question is....is it in THIS case? Your generic statement is nothing more than....generic.

I don't see how any attempt to preserve the ecology of our planet can be viewed as pathetic.

Fine. Then show us where using our own resources, oil or nuclear power, would be detrimental to the ecology. Your statement is, once again, only generic. No one really gives any answers...they just make generic statements, like the Dali Llama or a sage.

Sometimes a proposed cure is worse than the problem

More of the same.....

I really don't think playing the blame game (on either side) is in the best interest of the American people.

Fine. Let's cut all political parties out of it. There is a group in congress that will not allow us to use our own natural resources. They are backed by, and support, the environmentalists. The news agencies cooperate with them to keep it away from the public eye. I think it is wrong.....no political parties mentioned.
What DO you think is in the best interest of the American people then, Karen? Paying billions to foreign governements for a product we have in abundance? Spending more in gasoline, oil-based products like plastics, goods which cost more because of the rising costs of transporting them? Does THAT sound like it's in our best interest?

I could care less about party loyalties concerning this issue. As I stated before, if I saw a candidate of ANY party promising to use our natural resources to lesson our dependence on foreign oil, I would vote for him.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


14 posted 05-18-2008 02:51 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I'm just a simple person with simple ideas. But it does seem to me that the mothership Earth has to be non-compromised in order to heal.

The United States is as dependant on the planet as every other country.

What you call generic, I simply call non-partisan.

I wanna be a windfarmer, m'self. My feet still carry me around. Maybe not as as efficiently, but they still do.

I happen to think even our urban planning sucks. Have you ever lived in a suburb with no transportation? Each of these "better living communities" that have popped up across the U.S. are all designed for families with cars. This means tht each adult living there generally ends up with a gas guzzling albatross. Cars infuriate me.

But I concede I HUG my air conditioner. If I could talk to "Him-Who-Hides-Money" you'd better believe we'd have solar panels. I know it can be done because I see it getting done and I know the potential savings would rival the low interest rate he's getting at the bank.

Am I generic? Sure.

But not as generic as some.

Most people do not even give a damn.

I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but there are better answers than, to use Ron's analogy, slapping the last tired vein in junkie's foot. The only thing left after that is the neck, and that's playing with certain death, <--Just call that generic street smarts.

There is no one easy answer Mike. But generic Karen, if she had her way, would hand pick some of the best minds on the planet to address them for her. For all of us.

(Heh--inappopriate content--sorry Ron!)

oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


15 posted 05-18-2008 07:27 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Ah, Deer -- You're still locked in the oil is the only answer postion.  It's the current answer, not the only answer.

Fifty years ago, nobody knew for sure what could be done with atomic power, if anything, though there were theoretical expectations.  One hundred and twenty five years ago, almost everything was coal/steam powered, and what to do with the thick gooey stuff bubbling up in Pennsylvania was still a question. 300 years ago, "fuel" consisted of wood, peat, and dried cow poop. I don't think even you, you ol' recidivist, suggest we go back.

Chernobl can't be ignored, nor the Arizona fiasco.  Both happened.  The French have a handle on it.  Use their technological ability.  Halliburton can't build an office building that our own foreign service diplomats choose to enter.

The notion of someone, somewhere, coming up with a better energy answer isn't wishful thinking.  Just the crudest look at the evolution of technology, from shaping rocks to splitting atoms, suggests that technology evolves as need arises.  

The next genius to come along might even be, shocking as it may seem, a Muslim.  And hey, I'l bet you he or she will patent it and share.

The brief history of oil is a history of ruthless exploitation for gain.  Can we lay a little guilt on oil company "Greed?"  Yep.  I think Upton Sinclair wrote a novel/expose about a while back, and someone recently had the temerity to make a movie called, ah, "Greed."  How do you think the oil barons made their money, by being "nice guys?"  Heck, in this country, first, they used to shoot each other, or have someone do it for them, then, growing up, they just litigated competitors to death.  In Iraq, Iran, Khazakstan, and Argentina, etc, they still just shoot each other.  But better times are a'comin'.  Maybe we'll all wind up like England, pumping off the coast in the North Sea and having some of the highest gas prices anywhere...

Karen:  "Mother Earth" did perfectly well without us for billions of years.  It's probable that it will do perfectly well for billions of years after we are gone.  Then the sun will blow up.  But we won't be around to care. The notion of a "Mother Earth" is a religious or superstitious notion.  I think you know that.

Do we "owe" anything to the "Earth?"  I don't think so, and I don't the the planet Earth gives a darn one way or another.

Does the Earth owe us anything?  I don't think so.  Or if it does (if the Earth has an "itness" in a metaphysical sense,) I wish it would stop bestowing such gifts as hurricanes, tsunami waves, cyclones, floods, drought, earthquakes and other fun tectonic events.

Twenty years ago we were talking about Global Colding.  Now we are talking about Global Warming.  Both conditions were/are real.  There have been temperature fluctuaions as far back as geologists are able to trace.  The planet does it's thing with profound indifference to whatever, or what "nothing" is around at the time.

Can we utilize resources in harmony with what the planet currently has to offer for the good of our species?  Probably.  Will the Earth give a darn one way or the other?  Of course not.  It is not an anthropomorphic entity.  It is, ah, "The Third Rock" from OUR "Sun," and that's pretty much it.

Bet you dimes to donuts ther are more such fortunately situated rocks around, but I don't think either of us will be here to collect.  

Best, old irascible Jimbeaux.  

Sometimes I amaze myself.  I think that was a rant!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


16 posted 05-18-2008 07:35 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Jimbeaux, that is the best response I've ever read from you and I agree completely.


You're still locked in the oil is the only answer postion.  It's the current answer, not the only answer.

You are wrong and you are right. I am NOT locked into to the only answer mode. I AM locked into the current answer one, though. I fully expect that, one day, someone WILL come up with an alternative, perhaps something we have not even considered. That does not help our current situation, though, and our current situation is what should concern us while the great minds are working on the future solutions. We have the answers and we won't use them....makes no sense.
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


17 posted 05-18-2008 07:48 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi Deer.  I probably spoiled my remarks by going back and revising while you were posting.  Plus, it's not my "best" response.  It's just one of the few we more or less agree on.  

Laughing, Jimbeaux  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


18 posted 05-18-2008 07:56 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Nah, not really. Your revision added to your rant but had basically nothing to do with the topic at hand. Oil companies having a history of greed has little to do with using/not using our own oil supplies.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


19 posted 05-18-2008 09:10 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

It's okay to make fun of me and my religion by mocking my terminology.

That's not exactly new to me.

Another thing that's not exactly new is the date of that "news" item:

"Wednesday, March 19, 2003"

Now, I've already admitted I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, and oh yes, my religion comes into question as well via the terminology I used, so for the sake of argument, I will type "PLANET Earth." (Shaking my head, tsk..Jimbeaux, you didn't think I was one of those goth-types who practice Wicca because I like the accessories, did ya?)

But for the sake of argument, I'll not personify the planet, okay?

Mike?

I will grant you that there is little evidence that oil drilling impacts nature--we have a few oil wells around and the fish seem to like them. And my brother supported his family nicely when he worked for OILMOP. I do seem to recall a nasty oil spill in Alaska too....the date is vague, but the pictures of people wiping down the suffering oil-covered wildlife is still pretty vivid.

But anyhow, since I know we are friends, let's keep it a friendly discussion.

Can you tell me, say, a ballpark figure of how much oil we import? Who is the major supplier of that? Is there a way we can compare the monetary difference between a barrel of U.S. oil to OPEC crude?

[This message has been edited by serenity blaze (05-19-2008 12:25 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


20 posted 05-18-2008 10:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I can do better than ballpark. my friend..

March 2008 Import Highlights:  May 12, 2008
Preliminary monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in March 2008 has been released and it shows that two countries exported more than 1.50 million barrels per day to the United States. Including those countries, a total of three countries exported over 1.20 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 69 percent of United States crude oil imports in March while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 88 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top sources of US crude oil imports for March were Canada (1.727 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.535 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.232 million barrels per day), Nigeria (1.138 million barrels per day), and Venezuela (0.858 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (0.773 million barrels per day), Angola (0.375 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.232 million barrels per day), Ecuador (0.231 million barrels per day), and Brazil (0.188 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9.385 million barrels per day in March, which is a decrease of (0.221) million barrels per day from February 2008.

Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in March, exporting 2.303 million barrels per day to the United States, which is a decrease from last month (2.464 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1.542 million barrels per day.

Our problem is not only in drilling for oil, it is also building refineries, which we have not done for over thirty years, handcuffed by the same roadblocks that do not allow the oil drilling.

Interesting that Canada is our largest oil importer. Thank God they are not as concerned about the destruction of their pristine beauty as we are or we would really be in trouble!
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


21 posted 05-18-2008 10:34 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Cool beans Mike! I have been blowing off my housework because I'm finding this fascinating. I didn't know that Canada was our largest supplier!

And how much do they charge per barrel and how much do WE charge?

And what about the expense of turning crude oil into petroleum?

Um, Show me the money?

But seriously, I'm learning a lot tonight, so thank you.

I found this site interesting too:
http://thestateofamerica.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/an-update-on-americas-oil-dependence/


I've just finished an interesting article written by Robert Kennedy, Jr. too. But let me read a bit and absorb...

I've got to read this one too:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crude_types1.html

And I also came across this--
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp

So...I'll shrug off the environmental issue for a bit and study.

wisdomofthesword
Member
since 12-17-2007
Posts 222
the last place on earth


22 posted 05-18-2008 11:06 PM       View Profile for wisdomofthesword   Email wisdomofthesword   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for wisdomofthesword

all I have to say is be glad you only "shelling out almost 4 bucks a gallon" last time I filled the car up it cost almost $10 a gallon

I don't care if you think I'm a fool but don't ever tell me so

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


23 posted 05-18-2008 11:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

While oil demand grows higher by the day, supplies are in a constant state of flux…

The Middle East’s tinder is constantly catching fire, and the other major crude oil players are either unfriendly (like Venezuela and Nigeria) or simply running out of oil (like Mexico and the North Sea region).

But Alberta, Canada’s oil sands, once too costly for crude oil refineries to process, have suddenly become a veritable black gold mine. Now…

    *

      The cost of refining crude oil from tar sands has dropped from $29.63 a barrel to $13.21 – and continues to fall as oil production ramps up.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


24 posted 05-18-2008 11:56 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Thank you for your patience with me, Mike.

But even if I toss out my emotional reticence, your argument isn't making sense to me financially. It doesn't even seem to be a quick fix economically.

I mean, maybe it's just me, but if I read the sources I've offered and the sources you've offered, it's just not adding up. Granted, I'm not good at the mathy stuff, so if someone who is could explain it to me (gently please--like with a good ANALOGY--HINT-Winkie-HINT-RON---maybe I could see your point? Because my numbers aren't adding up. I'm not understanding how we can ever produce oil at a competitive price.

Is there some evidence that Alaska is sitting on all the oil we'll ever need? Because by your own admission, other oil producers are running out.

I think it's pretty evident that we'll have to make a transition from fossil fuels to other sources of energy. I also think it is evident that it won't be easy. But other countries are already doing it.

I realize I'm a little slow, but I had no problem understanding this excerpt from an article in Vanity Fair--

The Next President's First Task-A Manifesto

by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

"We know that nations that "decarbonize" their economies reap immediate rewards. Sweden announced in 2006 the phaseout of all fossil fuel (and nuclear energy) by 2020. In 1991, (1991! Now there's the foresight I was talking about) the Swedes enacted a carbon tax--now up to $150 a ton--and as a result thousands of entrepreneurs rushed to develop new ways of generating energy from wind, the sun, the tides, and from woodchips, agricultural waste, and garbage. Growth rates climbed to upwards of three times those of the U.S."

And there's more--

"Iceland was 80 percent dependent on imported coal and oil in the 1970s and was among the poorest economies in Europe. Today Iceland is 100 percent energy-independant, with 90 percent of the nation's homes heated by geothermal and its remaining electrical needs met by hydro. The International Monetary Fund now ranks Iceland the fourth most affluent nation on earth. The country, which previously had to beg for corporate investment, now has companies lined up to relocate there to take advantage of its low-cost clean energy."

So I think I stand by that decision you quoted as "pathetic".

Yanno? I've never really been anywhere outside of the country, so the internet has helped me tremendously in regard to keeping up with world viewpoints. Katrina literally hit home that we are far behind in our technological house-keeping. Nobody ever suggested that the Neatherlands be depopulated in phases. They built a flood protection system of admirable quality. I'm sure there's a lot more techno stuff we could utilize that I'm not even aware of...

We are blowing money on an optional war while our own house is in need of repair.

I'm not saying any of this because I like a certain political party--I'm dismayed with both of them. I'm not saying this because I don't love my country.

I'm saying it because I do.

We need to be put on an energy diet--and there is no quick fix diet. It's going to be painful but it simply must be done.

[This message has been edited by serenity blaze (05-19-2008 12:01 AM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> It's Official...   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors